The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held oral argument in importer Nutricia's customs suit on the classification of various of the company's medical foods with Judges Sharon Prost, Richard Taranto and Leonard Stark probing Nutricia's claim that its products are "medicaments" and not "food preparations." During the argument, which was held on Oct. 8 in Boston as part of the court's efforts to schedule arguments outside Washington, D.C., Taranto stressed that the case largely turns on the definition of the term "dietetic" (Nutricia North America v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1436).
The Commerce Department properly decided not to treat accrued interest on unpaid antidumping duties as an indirect selling expense for AD respondent Koehler Paper in the 2021-22 administrative review of the AD order on thermal paper from Germany, the Court of International Trade held on Oct. 10. Judge Gary Katzmann said Commerce reasonably found the interest on the duties to not fall under the statutory or regulatory definition of an indirect selling expense, permissibly including the interest in the cost of producing the subject thermal paper.
Importer Galleher submitted a notice of appeal on Oct. 8 at the Court of International Trade, indicating it will take a case on the 2017 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on multilayered wood flooring from China to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Last month, the trade court sustained the Commerce Department's remand results in the review, after the agency added a second respondent on remand and reconsidered certain benchmark calculations (see 2509120004). However, Galleher is appealing Commerce's decision to apply the individually calculated CVD rate to Jiangsu Guyu International Trading in the review, "despite deselecting the company as a mandatory respondent," which was at issue at an earlier stage of litigation (Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 20-03885).
Civil litigation attorney Corey Biazzo filed the second amicus brief against the legality of President Donald Trump's tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, on Oct. 8, arguing that IEEPA categorically doesn't allow for tariffs (Donald J. Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, U.S. 25-250) (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, U.S. 24-1287).
The Commerce Department permissibly rejected an adjustment to the cost of production of utility-scale wind towers to "account for production volume decreases before a shutdown" and properly selected two Malaysian pipe manufacturers as the surrogate companies to determine antidumping duty respondent CS Wind's constructed value profit, the Court of International Trade held on Oct. 8. Judge Gary Katzmann upheld both of Commerce's decisions challenged by CS Wind in the 2021-22 administrative review of the AD order on Malaysian utility-scale wind towers, leaving the exporter with a 17.97% AD rate.
The Court of International Trade upheld CBP's determination, made on remand, that importer Scioto Valley Woodworking, Inc., evaded the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on wooden cabinets and vanities from China. In a decision made public Oct. 9, Judge Lisa Wang rejected Scioto's claim that CBP can only make an affirmative evasion finding if it finds the importer to actually have imported covered merchandise through evasion, and the judge found the evasion determination to be supported by substantial evidence.
The Commerce Department properly excluded seven types of bricks imported by Fedmet Resources Corp. from the scope of the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on magnesia carbon bricks from China on remand, the Court of International Trade held on Oct. 9. Judge M. Miller Baker said the conclusion comports with a 2014 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision, which led to the standard that the addition of any amount of alumina to a magnesia carbon brick excludes it from the orders.
Exporters Deacero and I.N.G.E.T.E.K.N.O.S. Estructurales on Oct. 3 dropped their antidumping duty case at the Court of International Trade. The companies filed suit last month to contest the final results of the Commerce Department's 2022-23 administrative review of the AD order on steel concrete reinforcing bar from Mexico. Counsel for Deacero didn't immediately respond to a request for comment (Deacero v. United States, CIT # 25-00216).
Target General Merchandise will appeal a recent Court of International Trade decision regarding the tariff classification of the company's string light models, according to a notice Target filed at the trade court. Last month, CIT found string light models to be classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 9405 as lamps with a "permanently fixed light source" not specified elsewhere in the tariff schedule and not under heading 8543 as parts of electrical machines having individual functions not specified elsewhere in the chapter (see 2508130023). The court said Target's seven models of string lights specifically fall under subheading 9405.30.00 as lighting sets "of a kind used for Christmas trees," subjecting the goods to an 8% duty (Target General Merchandise v. United States, CIT Consol. # 15-00069).
The Court of International Trade partially remanded the International Trade Commission's injury investigation on freight rail couplers from China in a confidential decision issued Oct. 8. Judge Gary Katzmann held oral argument in the case in July, questioning attorneys as to whether it was lawful for the ITC to open an injury investigation two months after reaching a negative injury finding for the same imports (see 2507070056) (Wabtec Corp. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 23-00157).